Assessing Technology's Effects on Student Wellness Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors

Friday, March 19, 2010
Exhibit Hall RC Poster Area (Convention Center)
John H. Downing, Gerald Masterson and Thomas S. Altena, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO
Background/Purpose: Determine the effectiveness of a technology oriented university fitness for living course on student content knowledge, attitude toward wellness and wellness behaviors, and investigate the relationships between post-course wellness attitudes and behaviors on post-course content knowledge.

Method: Data were collected from 956 students from a university core fitness for life course, comprised of nine sections of weekly 1 hour lectures, and 50 laboratory sections that convened twice per week. Six departmental faculty presented the lectures; 18 instructors of varying rank supervised the laboratories. A Student Response System (SRS), designed to reinforce critical thinking skills, was employed in the lectures. The laboratories utilized various technologies to evaluate student fitness levels, inventory student wellness behavior and apply lecture content to selected fitness intervention activities. The previously validated, Wellness Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior Instrument served as the criterion measure. This three part instrument contains 33 knowledge questions plus 14 attitude and 17 wellness behavior survey items. Data were collected in pre (PRT) and post (POT) course test/survey formats which were administered through the course web page via a revised, on-line InQsit survey/testing measurement tool. Subjects (n = 660) that completed all 6 pre and post test subcomponents were retained in the study.

Analysis/Results: Wellness content knowledge assessments indicated that the course had a significant effect on the POT scores via dependent t-test (PRT M, 62.38%,SD, 11.33, SEM, .44; POT M, 72.69%, SD, 12.28, SEM, .48, p < .001). The results of the wellness attitudes and behaviors survey assessments indicated that the course had a significant effect on the POT scores of the subjects via the Wilcoxin Sign Test (PRT M attitude, 59.21, SD, 5.91; POT M attitude, 62.17, SD, 5.83. PRT M behavior, 55.5, SD, 9.45; POT M behavior, 61.58, SD, 10.38, p < .001). A multiple regression was also performed to determine the effects of POT attitude and POT behavior on POT content knowledge z-scores. Results indicated that wellness behavior had no significant relationship to POT content knowledge scores (p > .343), and that wellness attitudes had a minimal, yet significant impact (R2 = .04, ß = .032, t = 4.8, p < .001) on the prediction of content knowledge as a result of taking the course.

Conclusions: Continue using SRS technology to help reinforce critical thinking skills and concurrent content knowledge gains, and persist in stressing the importance of positive fitness-wellness attitudes and behaviors as lifestyle choices.